Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 11

Identify this thing

Slightly OT perhaps but can anyone help Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#What is it eating? Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for some help

I'm not a real Kiwi-Wikipedian. But I've been writing about some NZ issues in the last years. For instance: Eastwoodhill Arboretum. I've done some other (small) NZ things as well. I want to ask some help, with the articles I've been working on recently. I'm a native Dutchman, and my fluency in English is not exactly too good to meet up the standards of en-wikipedia, perhaps. May I ask some of you Kiwi's to have a look at some of my articles from this point of view? Especially Bob Berry (dendrologist), that does not seem to meet some standards. I think it is an important person here in the Gisborne region of New Zealand in the specialized field of trees. It's difficult to get information on / from him. I tried my best on it. But I'm perhaps a bit too involved to have a proper look (I'm working as a volunteer in his arboretum a few months a year). The assesment doesn't mention any specific things I could enhance. The discussion page is still empty. So please, feel free to edit it as rigorous as possible. Same for: William Douglas Cook, who has been of even more importance for NZ (Eastwoodhill and Pukeiti). I like to continue this work, but I'm not really sure if I'm working in the right direction. So please let me know.

Thanx in advance.

Greetings from a Dutch Wikipedian, staying in Tiniroto, Gisborne every now and then for a couple of months, Dick Bos (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

NZ cricket on wikipedia

I would like someone's help with getting our information onto Wikipedia. With limited expertise we have been unable to do this.....Our organisation has launched a new website at www.procricket.co.nz. We are the Association for procricketers in NZ and we set up the site to profile cricket as a career. On the site there is the most comprehensive set of unique interviews that have been done on our guys....they appear as audio and written on player websites.

I want to list these player websites as references or external links on the player's wiki pages. I would also like to list the site in NZ cricket posts. When I have tried to do this I have been blocked for spamming and I have had no alternatives provided to me by wiki.

Its a frustrating scenario because our articles are far better than anything that currently exists on the player's sites and they themselves are keen to raise their Kiwi profile.

If anyone can suggest a way of getting these links uploaded we would most appreciate it. If you like you can send me an email...my address is on the nzcpa website www.nzcpa.co.nz

Aidan Career and Personal Development Manager NZCPA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidan hobson (talk • contribs) 01:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you have indeed made many attempts to add links to your website. The links are being automatically reverted by a bot which believes your website to fail the external links guidelines. I don't know how it was identified as such by the bot. You might ask at WikiProject Spam.-gadfium 04:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk: WikiProject External links might be another useful place to ask about this. There certainly doesn't seem to be any mention of your site on the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or full list at Meta. Grutness...wha? 05:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you got in trouble by using links inappropriately. For example, a link to www.procricket.co.nz was removed from Jacob Oram. That is because the home page of your website contains absolutely nothing about Mr Oram. However, http://www.procricket.co.nz/index.php?page=PlayerPage&player=JOram is an acceptable link, as it is the core page of a set of four about him. The interviews linked off that page might also provide references for specific statements in the article. However, putting your links on articles such as Chennai Super Kings is spam in my book - the relevance is far to sleight to satisfy the External links policy. dramatic (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

On re-reading WP:EL, I see that you should not add links to a website that you own or control. I can add appropriate links as I am a disinterested party (but it might be a week or three before I can find time). dramatic (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback dramatic - I agree that the link needs to be as specific as possible to the player's website and original material. The issue for us is that we need the 'public' to list these on the guys site and wiki as a whole. Gadfium - you are right in terms of the bot - I now have no access to upload links....pointed out by Dramatic as well given I am the 'owner' of the site. I think this is a fair protection but in my case there could be good reason to have the owner go though and add these as references or external links. Again - really apprciate the feedback and if anyone is keen to actually do this work for us - where appropriate accroding to wiki guidelines - i would be very keen to talk with you. A —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidan hobson (talk • contribs) 22:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, this may be more of a task for Wikipedia:WikiProject External links - or Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket. The latter in particular may be a good place to seek help with this task. Grutness...wha? 22:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at a template similiar to {{All Blacks}} and run through it with AWB, a preliminary look shows about 60 from 100 players listed at http://www.procricket.co.nz/index.php?page=PlayerWebSites have a Wikipedia entry. Please keep an archive when players move on, so the links still work in several years time, and the player id (e.g "JOram") consistent! XLerate (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's done, the template is {{NZCPA}}, the 72 players now with the link are listed here. Of the rest 17 didn't have a page, 10 didn't contain the word cricket, and I didn't see a NZ cricketer Michael Burns. XLerate (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The bot will no longer revert links to this site, so you can update links if necessary.-gadfium 01:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow - this is amazing - thanks so much for all the help. This is an amazing solution. From all of us here thanks again. Xlerate - I am assuming you have done this for us....and thanks also to gadfium. If you have any further ideas about the profile of our Kiwis on wiki please let me know but for now this is sensational - really. Aidan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidan hobson (talk • contribs) 02:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome, glad you like the results! Some articles lack a photo of the player, the NZCPA can help here if it would be willing to donate photos with a free licence (release copyright). XLerate (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Really happy to donate the photos. Please let me know what I need to do - I probably can't upload them myself but happy for either yourself/wiki to take them off the site or I can send them somewhere. Please let me know. A —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidan hobson (talk • contribs) 00:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Aidan, I think the best way is for NZCPA to send an e-mail per WP:CONSENT. For "WORK" I can suggest "player photos, not attributed to Photosport or others, at http://www.procricket.co.nz/". For the license one option is Cc-by-sa-3.0-nz. I'm ok to work through uploading the photos and adding them to the articles. XLerate (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi XLerate I have had a go at the email as suggested and I posted it to photosubmissions@wikipedia.org. I have included in that email 'audio and written interviews from player websites' hoping that perhaps this copyright will cover for people wanting to use more than the photos across wiki. For the same purpose as the photos I am happy to share the individual interviews. I was also wondering, if time and energy allows, whether you might consider helping post our site as an external link to other relevant wiki pages such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Cricket and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_cricket_team

Not sure again if this would count as spamming. Thanks very much - greta stuff once again. A —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidan hobson (talk • contribs) 00:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wellingtonians - a chance to appear at Te Papa

User:Pharos has asked at least three of us to be a WikiMedia contact for the possible function at Te Papa related to the "Wikipedia Loves Art" project.

Simon Lyall has agreed to be part of it.

As I said, I don't do photography and I live about an hour away from Te Papa.

Anyone interested, please talk to Pharos and Simon.

Robin Patterson (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC) in Plimmerton

New Zealand people CfD

Category:New Zealand people is currently up for discussion here, potential impact on many subcategories. XLerate (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

<Month> in Australia and New Zealand Lists

Up for deletion at AfD. Matt (Talk) 06:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Constitution Act 1986

Could I have some opinions please on the matter under discussion at Talk:Constitution Act 1986, which has now spread to Talk:Independence of New Zealand.-gadfium 06:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider "Investigate" magazine a reliable source.Daveosaurus (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. (I removed it as a source in the Compact fluorescent lamp article recently Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Investigate

I'm concerned about the tone of Investigate (New Zealand) as it appears to often treat allegations made in Investigate, which hopefully most would agree is a fringe source, as fact. In particular, one of the biggest problems appears to be it uses Investigate as a source to make persistant rebuttals of issues where other sources no longer care or cover the rebuttals, which is problematic given that it's questionable if Investigate is a reliable source. While this is not disallowed, I think it needs to be handled with care. I've tried to improve it [1] by modifying where I felt I could and tagging claims which aren't directly supported by any sources (even Investigate) but further eyes would be appreciated. Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a distinct lack of neutrality in the article; for example, the section "Corruption in the New Zealand police force". This could be made neutral, with work, but the question could well be asked whether the "notable articles" referred to are in fact notable at all - particularly as the claims made in many of them are, at best, debatable.Daveosaurus (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a POV tag could be added. Is there any suggestion that the article is being edited by anyone connected with the magazine? DerbyCountyinNZ 23:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite a lot of edits come from User:BreathingMeat who is not tied to Investigate and has been relatively balanced in his edits, e.g. the original version created more or less completely by him [2], edits clarifying [3], removing junk [4]. The biggest change in a pro-Investigate direction came from an anon [5] (may or may not be the same person who tried this [6]). Most likely I suspect it's simply a case of one or a few editor/s who's POV are close to Investigate combined with the small number of editors actually interested enough to work on the article and the natural difficulty in dealing with a publication of this sort. Nil Einne (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have just done a bit of browsing of the policies section and think that WP:SPS should cover this situation. In a nutshell: Investigate would be a reliable source for information about the magazine itself but not a reliable source for claims about third parties.Daveosaurus (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

NZ on Screen

An earlier discussion agreed, although with minimal discussion, that links to NZ On Screen were appropriate, but all such links have been removed. Please join a discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links#NZ on Screen to determine a new consensus.-gadfium 06:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone available to speak to teachers?

Hi Kiwis, a call across the Tasman. I'm involved with the Wikimedia Australia chapter. Last year I gave a talk at an education conference about using Wikipedia in the classroom. One of the people who came to my talk was a teacher from Blenheim. She has emailed me to ask if I know anyone "who is an editor like yourself and who could present to staff on using Wikipedia and its value in the classroom as a teaching tool."

Further info:

"The Teacher only day is Thursday 9th April. it is for about 20 staff in 2 sessions, same presentation each time. Something along the lines of what you did at ACEC. Expected each session to be 1-1.5 hrs with time for hands on as well as we can run it in a computer lab so they can look at things for themselves so presenter can take a breather.

"We are happy to pay travel costs and possibly accommodation if they were to run a session the evening before for parents or if they can't get in and out of Blen in the day."

The material from my talk is available here and I would be happy to work with whoever does this to help them out. It's more important that you are well familiar with Wikipedia, feel confident in your knowledge, and are prepared to stand up in front of people and talk, than actually having speaking-on-Wikipedia experience. If you read this board, you're almost certainly expert enough to pull it off. :)

Please forward this to anyone you know who it might suit, and please email me if you would be able and willing to do this. I don't know when they need to arrange it by, but I'm guessing it's ASAP as most things are. thanks! --pfctdayelise (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I am enthusiastic about doing this and have emailed pfctdayelise. Lanma726 (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

McEvedy Shield

This page (on a school sporting event held today) is currently being repeatedly vandalised if a NZ admin would like to perhaps lock it (I would speculate vandalism will continue for this evening, and perhaps for the rest of the week). Lanma726 (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised this is considered notable enough for wikipedia! DerbyCountyinNZ 04:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is not. That is a call an admin could make. Lanma726 (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There's certainly a claim to notability in the article, as the largest athletics meet in the southern hemisphere. It is not therefore a candidate for speedy deletion (and I don't recall a speedy deletion criteria for non-notable events, anyway).

It is to be expected that a current sports event will receive numerous edits, and I am reluctant to protect it. I suggest two approaches to combatting vandalism:

1. Warn existing vandals, with a {{uw-test1}} template or similar. Knowing that someone is watching their edits puts off vandals very often.
2. Increase the visibility of the article, as you have done here. You could consider adding it to Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages (but remember to remove it again once the edit rate dies down), and adding {{Current sport}} to it, which might attract more anti-vandalism editors.-gadfium 04:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Those sound like very sensible solutions. Cheers Lanma726 (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, there was in fact more constructive edits going on that destructive edits Lanma726 (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit war in progress

An edit war seems to have broken out over the infoboxes on New Zealand at the 1950 British Empire Games and New Zealand at the 1974 British Commonwealth Games. There has been no discussion on either talk page, and since the infoboxes contain information which is not otherwise present in the article, the removal is significant. Please patrol (and discuss).dramatic (talk) 07:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

WPNZ Assessment

I normally respond, often belatedly, to requests for article assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Assessment#Requesting an assessment. However, I'd prefer if someone else deal with the current request, as I've had a run-in with the requestor recently.-gadfium 06:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'll take a look. XLerate (talk) 07:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Robyn E. Kenealy

Hello. Cameron Scott has said he wants to send this article to AfD. He's been removing content and citations, and undoing my edits when I replace them. Doesn't seem like it will be a very fair AfD discussion with all the content gone and no evidence to support what's left. We've been having a chat about it here: Talk:Robyn_E._Kenealy but it's got to the point where I think others need to get involved. Thank you. Vegetationlife (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The article as it stands at the moment seems rather more promotional than encyclopedic, but that is probably more of a style issue. Personally I don't think the subject is sufficiently notable for an article but I am at the exclusionist end of the scale as far as notability is concerned. As far as AfD is concerned I am pretty sure most users would think to look at the page history not just the current form of the article so there should not be an issue of "fairness". DerbyCountyinNZ 08:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Coat of arms of New Zealand

Hi I just made a vector image of Coat of arms of New Zealand.png-->Vector Version. If there are any mistakes or inaccuracies please give me a heads up. Sodacan (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sodacan, I can see many hours have gone into the vector version and it's been done to a high standard. But I want to restore to the official version from the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. While some elements of the image, such as the stars, are suitable for vector graphics, others, such as the people, are freehand artwork and a vector version is only ever going to be an approximation. Like replacing the Mona Lisa with a vector version, just not acceptable however good the quality. XLerate (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I see there is a vector version of the coat of arms available commercially here, so they must have some uses. It seems to me that Sodacan's version is an adequate replacement for the raster version at low resolutions, e.g. 200 pixels wide, but I find the faces (especially the woman's) look a bit unnatural at bigger sizes. Her dress seems to hang strangely below the waist on the right, too. The biggest inaccuracy I see is that the feathers in his hair fade gradually from black to white. I think they are supposed to be Huia feathers, which change sharply from black to white near the tip. See e.g. File:WearingHuiafeathers.jpg and File:Huia_Buller.jpg. Smaller things include the shafts of the hammers tapering towards the top, and a lack of perspective in the stars on the flag (should be smaller/further away towards the top). And I have no idea why, but the bottom star on the shield is noticeably larger than the rest in the official version.[7] -- Avenue (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys for the feedback, I made the changes you recommended- hope you like them :)--Sodacan (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The vector-images.com is probably illegal for a couple of reasons - copyvio, "use of the New Zealand Coat of Arms is restricted to Government. It may not be used by private individuals or organisations". The only legal version of the coat of arms I see is on the Ministry webpage, unlike the flag it can never be perfectly described by vector graphics due to the artwork. In the history they say "by the mid 1940s it was found that there were at least 20 versions of the design in use", which is whats happening here. The coat of arms must be the original, not a derivative work. XLerate (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Outline of New Zealand

I almost RFD'd this but it's apparently part of some project to do something. Appears to be a big duplication of the main New Zealand and List of New Zealand-related topics articles with a bit of bad formatting thrown in. Thoughts? - SimonLyall (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that this is being done for all countries (looks like a stash of c&p with a bit of minor follow-up editing). Nice of the project people to not bother mentioning it on any of the NZ wiki pages! DerbyCountyinNZ 09:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We had the same at the Indonesian project - we had an existing list but that didnt bother them - they seem little interested in communicating with projects that they create the things in SatuSuro 13:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be redundant to list of x related topics pages, though they don't seem to have figured this out yet. Richard001 (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Project template

Some time ago I had endevoured to slowly tag with WPNZ class=NA for consistency within the categories of the project - and I noticed just now that someone has fiddled the template to produce WPNZ class=CAT and importance=NA - was that an internal project change (or did anyone even notice it had happened) - or was it something from outside of the project? SatuSuro 13:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The change came from outside the project, but is part of a standardisation of wikiproject templates. I've seen a request before that a link to the New Zealand portal be added to the template, but adding it before the standardisation looked too tricky.

Until recently, I don't think anyone other than yourself saw any great value in tagging categories with the WPNZ template. Now that we have Article alerts, the tag becomes useful in alerting people who want to be able to track proposed changes to categories without having to watch the high traffic Categories for discussion pages.-gadfium 20:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I find so many projects untagged - it usually reflects a very limited understanding within a project that project maintenance is good for a project - it can reveal lots of areas that need some work: anyone who can track CFD without article alerts has to be either very clever or weird (I say this as there is one seriously high volume CFD mover in south island ;) ) SatuSuro 23:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

NZ Slouch hat

Hi, an image of the NZ slouch hat was recently deleted as it didn't meet a Wikipedia technicality. Is there anyone out there who could take an image of this hat and post it on W/P? This is the slouch hat [8] not the lemon squeezer. Many thanks from across the Tasman. Ozdaren (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

NZ Books

(copied from My talk page after I removed the "new books" subsection from 2006 in New Zealand with the comment that there are too many to list):

I note that you have removed the books section from some of the Year in New Zealand articles. Rather than not having the section at all would it not be better to list the notable books (i.e. books with a WP article)? Book publication is at least as important as films, music, TV programmes etc which are listed. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with the award winners (we need to add awards like the Esther Glen medal, too). But if there is a selective list where the crriterion is "that we have an article on it", then we would be better to link to a category. (I have no idea whether the Category folks would consider Category:Books published in New Zealand in 2005 to be overcategorisation or not. The other option would be a list article. I think films are different, given that a year with as many as 10 films is rare. I wouldn't want to see every Television series listed either, especially with the plethora of reality stuff. dramatic (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

To avoid a clutter of info but to give balance to the Year in New Zealand articles we should at least have notable or selected (prone to being subjective) books etc. Another solution perhaps is to have XXXX in New Zealand literature articles that list the books. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that books which have won a major national or international award should be listed in the year in New Zealand articles (but there are a very large number of awards, so we need to agree on which ones are considered major), and there are certain books which were hugely influential, such as The Hollow Men, Encyclopaedia of New Zealand and Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, which I think are worth listing even though the first two of these didn't get an award as far as I know. -gadfium 03:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A complete list of all books published in New Zealand can be obtained from the national library's national bibliography. Find it at http://publicationsnz.natlib.govt.nz/ (click on "Create reports") They have an legalistic definition of 'published in New Zealand,' but I can't see it mattering for these purposes. Personally I'd be keen to see pages created for a large number of literary prizes, with the winners listed. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Poi

People may wish to comment at Talk:Poi_(juggling)#Article_title. I've also suggested it as a future Wikipedia:New Zealand collaboration‎. dramatic (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of titles

A series of anons are repeatedly removing titles (e.g., "Sir", "ONZ") from List of people from Dunedin. Not sure, but it could also be happening to other articles. AFAIK the general rule is to keep people's honorifics in articles, though if this is not the case please let me know! Grutness...wha? 07:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the vandals seem to be out in force tonight. I've undone half a dozen IP edits already on a wide range of articles. dramatic (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Shame the list wasnt even tagged for the project :) SatuSuro 08:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines are at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies), in the sections "Honorific titles" and "Post-nominal initials", but they mostly deal with how to write the lede of the article on the person in question. It is usually appropriate to use "Sir/Dame/Lord/Lady" for someone with that title on the first mention of their name in an article. Post-nominal initials are appropriate in the lede of the subject's article (if issued by the country they are associated with), but my interpretation is that they are not necessary in other articles. In a mention here, I would say "Sir Edmund Hillary" and subsequently just "Hillary", I would not say "Sir Edmund Hillary KG, ONZ, KBE" although that is the full and correct title according to his article. Look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Edmund_Hillary for examples.-gadfium 08:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

To be pedantic, I don't think you'd put both "Sir" in front and "KBE" after - one or the other, but not both (unless the knighthood indicated by the "Sir" was not the KBE). Grutness...wha? 23:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We had the issue dealt with in the oz project after many a ruffled feather - problem is I cannot remember where the resolution sits - also the Indonesian project - usually I think the resolved issue was - article title - plain name with no extra anythings - then in a list where it might be linked to the art, or inside the article itself - the full shmozzle with all the bits and pieces - btw the sir and kbe style is classic Indonesian style - they will always put Dr xxx Phd every time when they have the chance - tautologist but thats what they do SatuSuro 00:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Leonard Snee, Jan Molenaar and 2009 Napier police shootings

This project may be interested in bringing all of the above into one article about the tragic event. See Talk:Leonard Snee#Requested move -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

sir stanley whitehead

sir stanley whitehead parents lived in tasmania...married in waratah...his mother was jessie caroline stanley...the town of stanley in northern tasmania....ie hence stanley township...also birth place of another polly sir joseph lyons,former prime minister of australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.11.162 (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• If you think the info belongs in an article, add it to the article (the one on Stanley, Tasmania seems most appropriate). No need to come here... Grutness...wha? 13:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• Indeed as a sometime Tasmanian (sic) I concur SatuSuro 13:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Te Ara

Was invited to the official launch of the Otago section of the online encyclopedia Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand today (in case you're wondering, some of my artwork appears in it, hence the invite). Pretty high-powered opening - at least three MPs and about a quarter of Dunedin City Council, plus assorted Ngai Tahu dignitaries. I put in a good word with the Te Ara web admins for its use as a reference here, and mentioned that it is linked from quite a number of articles. The high-ups in Te Ara seem pleased that it's used as a major reference for NZ WP articles, and also acknowledged the fact that the links from here probably provide them with a fair few hits on their site (they were also appreciative of the scope and standard of many of the NZ articles here, so a round of applause to all here :) Grutness...wha? 13:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

nice artwork and nice images, pretty attractive and functional layout, cheers. Te Ara Otago link Paul Moss (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Heads up:Today's featured article

Victoria Cross for New Zealand is due to appear on the main page on May 12 (from midday on May 12, New Zealand time). See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 12, 2009. New Zealanders might like to add it to their watchlists.-gadfium 23:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Knight's Point

One of my earliest contributions to Wikipedia was Knight's Point. We've recently had a question on the talk page asking if someone has access to any sort of official documentation that might throw some light on the naming of the site, particular to confirm whose dog "Knight" was and who named the site. A few sources would be helpful in any case, even just pinning down the dates of construction. Blarneytherinosaur ^gabby? 06:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I work in the library at Victoria and am willing to looking, but I have no real idea where to start looking. Any hints? Stuartyeates (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

From "Wise's New Zealand Guide": "Named for Knight, a black labrador belonging to N. G. McGeorge, an engineer's assistant closely associated with the road construction." Grutness...wha? 07:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What's the date on that guide, Grutness? They've been floating around in different forms for half a century...

I don't have a copy, but it's in the 1969 edition, page 125. See Google books.-gadfium 08:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup - it's the 1969 issue I have (4th edition). Grutness...wha? 08:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The 9th (1994) edition also contains the story (with somewhat different wording).Daveosaurus (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Splitting Parihaka

I have suggested a split of the Parihaka article into one about the town and one about the resistance by Maori (a notable part of NZ history). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Help us understand why, Alan? the Marae is probably the biggest community in the area, Parihaka as a term is synonymous with peace and the process on non-violent protest, and is recognised internationally as such. Perhaps the history could have other specific articles, dont know, needs careful consideration, and consultation with many parties. I think that we could give value to the article by finding the verification for the belief that both Mandela and Ghandi admired Parihaka principles of behaviour. "Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man." Gandhi. mozasaur (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Paul. "Town" is a misnomer - all the occupied houses are on the marae land (almost like a "gated community". There would be nothing to put in an article on the "town". We should have an article on the festival though. dramatic (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

History of cricket in New Zealand

I created a stub page at History of cricket in New Zealand to list all of the subpages. The article will need writing and a summary at Cricket in New Zealand. The ball is in your court.... -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Lake Alice, Fiordland

Does anyone have a NZGS map covering Deep Cove, Doubtful Sound? As you will see from my comment at Talk:Alice Falls‎, there is some confusion over the identification and height of the falls, and either Google maps or the waterfalls website has to be wrong. (Google shows lake Alice having an elevation of 160m, making it rather difficult for it to have a 200m+ waterfall on the outflow. dramatic (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

NZTopoOnline is a contour map with spot heights. It has a Alice Falls from Lake Alice at George Sound, looks to be <100m. The article coords point to here. The article appears to be confused with Lady Alice Falls[9], which has LINZ coords in Doubtful Sound, ~50 km SSW of Lake Alice. Here NZTopoOnline shows a very steep section from ~200-300 m down to the sound. I think the article should be retitled Lady Alice Falls, Lake Alice details removed, coords moved to Doubtful Sound. XLerate (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see no lake above Lady Alice Falls - just a steep climb to a col at 993m. -- Avenue (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Renaming and slightly rewriting the article makes sense to me, too. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, The maps I looked at didn't name the sound within view and I didn't zoom out enough to check. mea culpa. dramatic (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've renamed the article and pruned it back. -- Avenue (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the article thinking that the falls were the one to the upper left of the "Lady Alice Falls" label, not the right. The one on the left has a similarly steep drop, except of 600m. If you take a close look there are two small lakes above the falls in a cirque.themaee^talk 03:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Going by Terralink Fish Eye (which has the old 1 : 50 000 topo maps as a raster layer) Lady Alice Falls are definitely the ones specified by Avenue. No height is given, but the contour lines from about 60 m to about 240 m form a solid blob of orange so I'd guess a height of about 200 m. The stream to the north-west (entering Deep Cove opposite Pridham Point and Rolla Island) is steep but straight (I'd guess about 1 in 1 grade or thereabouts). Incidentally, the height of Lake Alice at George Sound is given as 60 m and the height of Alice Falls (draining the lake into the Sound) is given as 56 m.Daveosaurus (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD of John Stuart Yeates

New Zealand botanist John Stuart Yeates has been nominated for deletion.

I've added the nomination to the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.-gadfium 09:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

can we have some ideas on where we might debate the validity of using MBE/OBE appointments as indications of notability for Bio purposes? surely published Royal appointments based on central government advice is beyond question? here is the text from the 1977 list; ""CENTRAL CHANCERY OF THE ORDERS OF KNIGHTHOOD ST. JAMES'S PALACE, LONDON s.w.i 31st December 1977 THE QUEEN has been graciously pleased, on the advice of Her Majesty's New Zealand Ministers, to give orders for the following appointments to the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire: Order of the British Empire. (Civil Division) M.B.E. To be Ordinary Members of the Civil Division of the said Most Excellent Order :" [10]mozasaur (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is in response to my comment at that AfD, in which I disagreed with someone !voting to keep the article based solely on him having an MBE. I agree that having an MBE or an OBE is one indication of possible notability, but I don't think it's enough on its own. Take two from the 1977 list who I've never heard of: Albert Roy FRETHEY, OBE, and Henry WOODYEAR-SMITH, MBE. A quick Google search gave me nothing about Mr Woodyear-Smith, and only a short bio of Mr Frethey, which led me to think he was probably not notable in the Wikipedia sense. Of course there may be more information published about them than this revealed, but what I've seen so far confirms my view of MBEs and OBEs; indicative of notability, but certainly not conclusive. -- Avenue (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Avenue that such appointments are indicators of notability but not enough by themselves. ONZ is sufficient by itself, in my opinion, and ideally there should be no redlinks at the article Order of New Zealand. This seems as good a place to discuss it as any.-gadfium 20:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Avenue that OBEs and MBEs are not necessarily notable. I disagree with the examples chosen, however, as few of the 1977 newspapers, press releases and official proceedings are archived are online. Abstractly deciding the notability of such people without access to contemporary reportage seems foolish. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with gadfium that an ONZ should be sufficient in itself. I'm sorry if I didn't hedge my comments about the two 1977 examples enough. I'm certainly not claiming that a quick Google search is sufficient to determine notability of someone who was active decades ago. Having said that, the Frethey bio still leaves me doubtful about whether he would qualify, even after searching paper sources, so I think that's probably not a bad example. -- Avenue (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys, appreciate your responses. I attempted to separate the issues, to simply debate the single fact of a Royal appointment. If there is something wrong with a royal appointment then I believe that we deserve to know what it is. The royal order process must have some discipline and honour surely, how is that less than good enough for wikipedia, thats my concern. How can it not be good enough on it's own. Sorry, it wasnt intended as a debate on notability, thats too complex and fraught with too much pov, less not go there in this page. Lets treat this focus as a discovery process, open and easy. I'll go to the page suggested, Order of New Zealand. cheers mozasaur (talk) 08:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You might have misunderstood my comment. I meant that this notice board is a good place to discuss whether such honours confer notability, not that the ONZ article was a suitable place for the discussion.-gadfium 09:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

And perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comment, mozasaur, but I'm not aware of where anyone has suggested "there is something wrong with a royal appointment". There seems to be a consensus above that an ONZ would establish notability, while OBEs and MBEs aren't sufficient on their own but can be used as indicators of notability, to supplement other sources. This doesn't mean there is anything "wrong" with them; they just sometimes recognise contributions to society that do not qualify as notable here on Wikipedia. If there's something else you think we need to debate, can you please explain clearly what it is? -- Avenue (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry i did misunderstand, I just didnt want to gum up this board and i even less desired conflict here. It has to be a learning process or why do this at all and I'm still trying to see the extent of the possible discussion ( I didnt even know there was a change in the order system til i started here.) I have seen that concept of consensus before, and I have to admit that I can not define it usefully, try as I may. I am happy to accept that the people here so far appear to agree that an ONZ is good enough.

I wanted to know why an MBE/OBE was any different, and details as to why it was thought to be less than good enough for clear notability on it's own standing. I'm trying to see the objectivity in the notability process, clearly the MBE/OBE would have it's own objectivity and discipline through the community>government>royal pathway to appointment. So what are the details of why it isnt sufficient on its own, and what is the objective evidence that "other recipients are merely well connected." I have a problem with the concept of " honoured for worthy but unnotable voluntary work" when in fact to do that work is to attain notability for it, because it is so important and so little done by the general 'un-notable' community. My belief is that too little value is given to such work, but more importantly too little is known in the 'modern' community about how well known those people are for their work. Its like its another world away and wikipedia isnt going to count it. But I may be wrong, just trying to figure it all out, and understand the objective process here.mozasaur (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I get a bit confused myself considering these issues. There is an overriding consideration that many people do not have enough information about them in reliable sources to support a Wikipedia entry, and this is often confused with a lack of notability. It is really only possible to discuss notability if we assume that sufficient reliable sources exist, and preferably are readily available to a range of editors.

Wikipedia would be seriously incomplete if we didn't have articles on certain people. I'm suggesting the members of Order of New Zealand are such people. The New Zealand's Top 100 History Makers and New Zealand Listener Power List are other compilations, considerably less authoritative, but which indicate significant gaps in Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealanders. It also seems reasonable that if another reputable encyclopedia has published a biography of someone, then Wikipedia should also do so, so all the names in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography should eventually have articles here.

Take a look at the New Zealand honours list for last New Year [11]. Will all these people make it into a future volume of DNZB? Do you think all the people in the equivalent list for the year 1900 are already there? There is a difference to my mind between the honours lists and the lists in the previous paragraphs, in that the honours are a means of thanking people for their contributions to the community rather than an attempt to identify those people based on the ill-defined concept of notability.

Being on an honours list certainly adds to notability, but I don't see it as being sufficient in itself. Being on a "Police most wanted" list, or the 1981 New Zealand Security Intelligence Service list of 20 "subversives" also adds to notability.

It's worth re-reading WP:PEOPLE. That says it comes down to the availability of published secondary source material. Someone on an honours list is more likely to have such material published about them following the appearance of the list.-gadfium 22:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it's good to review that. I agree that the available reliable material is a crucial point, but I was trying to separate the two concepts, (notability vs verification) so that the confusion about them is less. I need to check that concept of thanks in relation to an appointment, I'm sure it is, but that perhaps dilutes the perception of the core intent. It's a highly public and publicised thanks, many wikipedians might not grasp that it's not that long ago that newspaper and radio was the core information provider, and a public appointment broadcast then was truly huge, and known to a high percentage of the population. Those appointments created leaders and role models, and were healthy for society. The world has completely metamorphed in my lifetime. I am intensely interested in the whole thing, and I appreciate your coverage, my experience is that I need to focus on just the honours list first and bed an agreement down about that.

I guess that it does mean right now that even though someone is on an honours list, they will need supporting notability info on-line, and that suggests that a decreasing proportion of appointees will qualify here in relation to the age of the appointment. ie pre-internet era notables have less accessable proof, it's in microfilm etc.. One of my expected outcomes was to make it easier to create inclusions here based just on the historic appointment lists, rather than the enormous work sourcing the additional material. I still believe that the process leading to an appointment would be singularly useful as a notability decision maker, the appointment is indisputable, there is no room for pov /emo about it, and I struggle to see why wikipedia has to lay another mask over that process, because that allows for dispute to creep in, in fact I dont yet see why there is any stratification in the honours lists for wikipedia purposes. Is that just rules for rules sake? ref WP:PEOPLE. Perhaps they didn't consider how robust some existing processes were? Yeah, I know, I'm wilful. I'll read deeper though, cheers for your response.mozasaur (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that WP:PEOPLE is necessarily our benchmark. I'd like to point out that if anyone has difficulty getting secondary sources on particular individuals, a number of us have access to significant reference libraries (for example, my day job is physically located in the main VUW library). Asking on this noticeboard with specific books to look in is a good way to get people to look things up. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Queen's Birthday list

The Queen's Birthday honours list is out, and can be viewed at NZ Herald or Stuff. How many of these people do we think should have Wikipedia articles? John Walker (athlete), Simon Murdoch and Paula Rebstock do, but their articles have not yet been updated. I think Jenny Gibbs probably should have. Iritana Tawhiwhirangi perhaps, I'd have to do some research. She was on the Māori Party list last election. I haven't looked at any of the names lower than CNZM on the lists.

If it is worth producing articles on some of these people, shall I suggest this as the next topic for the WP:New Zealand collaboration, which currently has no topic with the required 4 votes.-gadfium 20:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on wikifying the list. I think that (a) the police officers and lawyers have probably been involved in investigations / prosecutions of notable events, it can be noted there; (b) many of the sports people ("Services to sport") already have their own articles (or should have); (c) artists and academics have more liberal notability requirements and (d) many of the "For services to the community" people have an involvement in a notable community group of some description, and their award can be mentioned there. Re: WP:New Zealand collaboration We need to wait at least a week for for the articles from smaller papers to make their way onto the internet. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The authoritative list of honours is at http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/honours/lists/list.asp?id=45 , unfortunately it appears with broken macrons.Stuartyeates (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've made the nomination at WP:New Zealand collaboration. Stuart, do you mind if I change some of the links on your scratchpad? Most articles should be named "firstname lastname", not "first second third lastname", and others such as John Walker and Alison Stewart need to be disambiguated.-gadfium 01:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

gadfium: You may edit my scratch pads, but please don't edit anything I've edited in the previous two hours, to reduce the chances of edit conflicts.Stuartyeates (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

gadfium: I've done as much with the list as I have time to for the moment. I've not done (a) link checking / disambiguation (b) proofing (c) linking to the flurry of recent news stories or (d) moved it to the main namespace (because I'm really not sure what the name should be). Go for you life with all this :) Stuartyeates (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

With help from gadfium, I've wikified the full list and it's gone live at Birthday Honours 2009. There are about a dozen links (some talk about multiple recipients from a region or field), but many recipients are still lacking really good references. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Instructions for generating persisent URLs to National Library of New Zealand records

The National Library of New Zealand has an excellent collection of New Zealand books, pamphlets, sound recordings, and similar. Unfortunately the catalogue doesn't make it easy to create persistent URLs into the catalogue for use in references. This is a quick description of how to generate such URLs.

1. Go to http://nlnzcat.natlib.govt.nz and search by author, title or keyword to find the record you're after.
2. Once you've found an item you want to link to, click on "Detailed View"
3. At the bottom of the list of details there is a "Record number" such as Record number: 843492
4. Append this record number to the URL "http://nlnzcat.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?BBID=" in this case http://nlnzcat.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?BBID=843492
5. This is the persistent URL to use for this record.

I'm hoping that this is going to be useful for proving the notability of New Zealand artists, musicians, authors and academics.

Stuartyeates (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Help - can someone review please

I reverted this addition to the David Bain article. The reference is a dead end. While the info may be true, my instincts tell me something may be awry. Could other editors please review my reversion, and see if they agree. If not, then please reinstate. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The edit was factual and in good faith, and it is not be difficult to find an online reference for it, eg [12]. I think if we paraphrase coverage of the trial published in the mainstream New Zealand media, then there should be no problem for New Zealand editors being in contempt of court. However, the trial produces newspaper/television headlines daily, and this was not a development significantly more unusual than any day's events (although others may disagree with me on that). Since we're not updating the article daily, the edit would appear to be undue weight on this event, particularly since it used a separate section. Unless something truly unexpected happens, I think we can leave updates on the trial until it finishes.-gadfium 20:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I hadn't seen the ref you gave, otherwise my warning bells wouldn't have gone off quite so loudly. I agree it is undue weight tho, and don't feel inclined to reinstate, so will watch for developments. Tks. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The warrant has been withdrawn,[13] which suggests its inclusion did give it undue weight. -- Avenue (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Parliament IP removing critical material from an MP article

I note that 203.97.232.81 (talk · contribs) has three times removed sourced critical material from Sam Lotu-Iiga, while also making apparently benign but unsourced changes to the article. This IP address is currently assigned to Parliament of New Zealand, so there may be a conflict of interest. I have warned the user, but would appreciate extra eyes on the article.-gadfium 01:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

They've removed the material twice more, and so I've blocked them. I'll raise this matter at WP:ANI.-gadfium 01:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the combination of blissful unawareness of how Wikipedia works combined with a press aide tendency to polish up the political CV ;-) Ingolfson (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You folks might be interested in OZ we have a potential pending session in Canberra in a few months to educate the pollies and their staffers about this - if I heard the rumour right SatuSuro 08:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Help! tutu?

Most New Zealander's will be familiar with the frequent admonition to kids, "don't tutu with it!" (meaning don't fiddle with things). But how is the word spelled? I had assumed it was Māori, since I've heard it most around the Māori community, but my wife points out that Māori has no way to spell it given the usual pronunciation. Does anyone know the spelling and origin? dramatic (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"Tutū" = "bugger about with" and lots of similar/related meanings. The Maori Dictionary says that some of the meanings are, insubordinate, mischievous, disobedient, mutinous, rebellious, recalcitrant, riotous, seditious or undisciplined etc. Searching for the correct spelling I came accross this novel meaning -- "do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good to eat!". Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That is the most tumeke proverb I have ever heard. --Helenalex (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have also seen that one rendered "... for you are crunchy and good with ketchup". Daveosaurus (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Dan(n)evirke

A requested move has been announced for Danevirke (the fortification) to be moved to Dannevirke. (I found this out - annoyingly - after someone had decided to pre-empt the decision by moving the article on the NZ town from [{Dannevirke]] to the inappropriate and convention-defying name of Dannevirke (New Zealand). If you wish to have some say on this topic, visit Talk:Danevirke#Requested move. Grutness...wha? 01:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

William Gilbert Puckey

Just wondering if anyone else feels that this article does not conform to wiki guidelines in terms of WP:Weasel words and WP:NPOV. Also not sure such a large block quote is appropriate/necessary in an article on a relatively minor person. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ 11:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think sometimes we are too concerned with absolute neutrality to the extent that any flavour in the writing gets suppressed. I think the specific sentence you have recently tagged is fine, and adequately supported by what follows. The quote is probably a bit too long in terms of style, but there is no copyright concern.

I agree that there is a problem with POV, for example in the section "A Man of Honour". Do any sources exist which take a more critical view of his life? The Muriwhenua Land Report certainly suggests a more critical view is appropriate.-gadfium 20:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Palmerston North

There has long been a paragraph about gang problems in Palmerston North, and I have resisted attempts to remove this as it was mostly well sourced. However, an editor (Hamish-r) from the Palmerston North City Council has advised me of some real-world repercussions from this section. See User talk:Gadfium#Crime information for Palmerston North. I earlier added a section at Talk:Palmerston North about the paragraph.

What would be a reasonable solution to this? My inclination has been to encourage more material to be added on crime so that the gang problem is seen in more perspective (although on reflection I was not nearly as encouraging to the editor as I might have been). Would moving the bulk of the paragraph to the history section, as Hamish-r suggested, be appropriate, despite my comments on the talk page?-gadfium 03:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the unneeded "Gangs" subheading so there would be a lesser perceived importance of gangs as a crime issue. I don't want to see that info moved to the history section. The first paragraph gives a good overview. The comments from Hamish-r highlight the need for NPOVness, completeness of info and comparisons to regional and international crime rates. WP is obviously taken as a serious source of info by some people. BTW, traffic stats for the page are 4-5000 views per month. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a separate section on crime (and possibly law enforcement) is warranted. The first paragraph in that section is fine, if not lacking one crucial reference. The second paragraph probably places undue weight on specific gang-related incidents: such specific information would belong in a "Crime in Palmerston North" article. As mentioned previously, the section should focus more on the general crime situation (however big or small). Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 04:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have received feedback here from two people, and would like more. I interpret Alan Liefting's comments so far as relatively neutral, while Liveste is opposed to keeping the para on the ground of WP:UNDUE. Another possibility would be to move the para to Gangs in New Zealand, perhaps with a link left at Palmerston North.-gadfium 05:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the section is reasonable - general info in the first paragraph, brief details in the second. For comparison, Chicago and New York City have crime sections, London and Paris don't. Maybe crime is underrepresented in other city articles.

Chicago and New York are two cities which are globally known for have ongoing and historical issues with crime, in particular organised and drug related crime, Mafia etc; for sure they'd have sections on crime, stands to reason.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.114.146.129 (talk • contribs)

Los Angeles, Houston, Philadelphia, San Diego also have such sections. Phoenix, Arizona has several sentences in the recent history section. Appears to be American-city related, only Birmingham of the top 5 UK cities has a crime section. New York City and Houston are also WP:FA.

I read the hiring comments on your talk page with a grain of salt, perhaps the Wikipedia info was an excuse. I went to the Manawatu Standard website to see if there was an article on "applicant declined position after reading Wikipedia". No results, but the top story at the moment is Gangs spark hotel lockdown. XLerate (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That was in a town called Foxton Gangs spark hotel lockdown which isn't even in Palmerston North area - perhaps you should check out a site called google map [14]

The source for the information RE: the person elected not to move to Palmerston North came directly from the HR Manager at our DHB to the head of City Planning at Palmerston North City Council.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.114.146.129 (talk • contribs)

Ok, Foxton, my error. Sounds like the core issue is one person has misinterpreted an isolated problem to be the tip of the iceberg, not compared other information like List of countries by intentional homicide rate, which shows Israel and New Zealand only 2 world rankings apart (Statistics NZ shows Palmerston North City/Rural to be about national average for the last 10 years - 1.07, 1.32, 1.25 per 100k respectively [15]). I've copy-edited the gang section to remove the open-endedness of some details, try and close the door on imagination/paranoia. XLerate (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Re. "Grain of Salt" I'd like to add that other departments of the hospital and positions throughout Midcentral Health have faced similar situations of applicants turning down jobs on balance due to crime, specifically gang concerns reported on wikipedia, in the two cases I know of both chose to stay and work, but only after first asking current staff where they lived and what they thought of the 'gang problems', their primary concerns were related not unreasonably to gang violence in areas from overseas which they not unexpectantly wanted to avoid. Both are happy with their decisions to move and love the kiwi lifestyle.Wikiwikwsaywha (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Liveste's comments. The gang-related items are not sufficiently encyclopedic in nature to warrant inclusion anywhere other than Gangs in New Zealand. DerbyCountyinNZ 08:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus here, but there is a majority of opinion against the material. However, the paragraph on gangs has been substantially trimmed in the meantime. Is this an adequate compromise?

I see that the Manawatu Standard has published an article on this: Wikipedia entries slag off Palmerston North. It has resulted in frequent blanking and addition of unsourced material, so I have semi-protected the article for the next week.-gadfium 03:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

We've generally agreed that a separate crime section should stay. Regarding the inclusion of gang-related information, two objections and one support for the status quo is, at best, a facile majority for the former. But if we combine this with the vociferous objections from the Council, I think that trimming the information wasn't unjustified. Personally I would have gone a bit further and removed the information on the Whatuira shooting as well, unless it was a defining criminal event in the city. I like your idea of expanding the crime section to put the gang situation in better perspective, and I'll volunteer to do this myself if there are no objections. It's a shame that the article has come to semi-protection, but what can we do. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 06:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight, or not?

Hi folks - could you please have a look at Mackenzie Basin, specifically at the skifields section. Does anyone here feel this is undue weight, or "promotional"?

I do not, obviously, because I have had a running fight against an anonymous for months now, who keeps deleting this whole paragraph about the skifields. During the "debate", he has argued everything from me being commercially interested, to the material being plain wrong (there was some initial confusion about "club" vs "commercial" skifields and the exact location of one of them) to now this material being undue weight. Anonymous has deleted this for maybe 15-20 times, and I will not simply accept that the article loses this material just because he dislikes it.

Some less involved voices would be good. Ingolfson (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look undue to me, although some of the information (in particular, the number of skier days) looks to be slightly trivial. The impression of undue weight could be due to the paragraph on gliding and aviation being so much smaller. I don't know the first thing about gliding in the Mackenzie, but, if you do, that might be something you could do to balance the article somewhat. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me.-gadfium 01:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - on some of these disagreements on less-visited articles, you sometimes feel a bit... lost... when there's nobody else except you and the other person arguing with increasing tension. Ingolfson (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Asia Downunder

could someone please check this article and ensure that no pov/coi exists, by doing it in an encyclopeadic manner, and for the benfit of wikipedia, being careful to NOT throwing out the baby with the bathwater.. clearly I have an interest in a more complete article existing than there was before i added to it, but also clearly, there are editors that wont accept me existing in the real world, as a verified artist, making significant contributions to mainstream media. So due to coi, it's ok if any one of you fix the quotation from the website, but not for me to. i get that. What I dont get, is how an article can lie around in minimalistic state for a period, and as soon as someone starts to add to it, the self appointed cleanser rushes in and cuts it to pieces. no doubt we will get another ear-bashing here for such 'boldness', but how about simply making the article better, doing some research, improving the thing, less conflict, more positivity. that would be good. Putting that another way, if the article becomes unbalanced, then re-balancing is possible by adding whatever is needed, as a strategy, rather than removing. There is plenty of resource out there to draw from. mozasaur (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul, on your Userpage you say "It's up to you to get real now." But it takes two to tango. With respect, you shouldn't chide other editors for criticising/reverting some of your contributions, exhorting them into "making the article better, doing some research, improving the thing." Yes it's a collaborative thing, but you have been around here long enough to see how articles are presented and to know that you yourself can strive to meet Wiki standards, and shouldn't expect to dump unedited text into an article and then expect others to fix it. Why not do it yourself? The following section you put in the page is terrible. Perhaps you would like to fix it yourself. Changing the caps to l/c would be a good start.

==Schedule==

"The programme is also screened across New Zealand at:

STRATOS Sundays 7:30pm

STRATOS "REFLECTIONS" Sundays 6:00pm

CTV (Christchurch) Sundays 11:30am

CHANNEL 9 (Dunedin) Mondays 9:00pm & repeats Thursdays 9:00pm

TV HAWKES BAY (Napier/Taupo) Tuesdays 9pm

FAMILY TV (Rodney) Mondays 5:30pm, Tuesdays 7:30pm, Saturdays Midday & Reflections Wednesdays 10:30am & Thursdays 7:30pm

TARARUA TV Sundays 7:30pm

MAORI TV Mondays 10:00pm

SIT - EDUCATIONAL TV NATIONWIDE -

CUE TV NETWORK -

SKY 110 & FREEVIEW CHANNEL 23 Mondays"

Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

whatever, I go and get the material and the only important thing is to discuss and improve it. I suppose it's easier to delete it and fight about it, but i'm not interested in that anymore. The programme content sample is in fact highly useful to the article, the article has a page to discuss such matters, and one of those programmes, The Sound of the Skies, is a featured article on the official TV NZ Asia Downunder youtube site here: http://www.youtube.com/user/AsiaDownunder. I'm happy to fix it, in a climate of positive discussion in the appropriate discussion space, so that my 'fixing' is approved and can be expected to last. No point in arguing here that its my lack of fixing and saying in the edit that it has nothing to do with an encyclopedia, it's designed to be a collaborative effort, not a fight. And clearly as there is 'some' coi, I'm asking for collaboration before spending hours of wasted editing. How would you recommend that the content is provided for encyclopeadic use? lets move on.mozasaur (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I tried to put it nicely, but, oh well. It is beyond me how you expect collaboration before you spend hours of wasted editing. Not everyone is expected to be a competent editor, but they have millions of Wikipedia articles as style guidelines. You should read some of them, get an idea of encyclopedic style, and try to post stuff that isn't going to create a lot of repositioning/rewriting/deleting for other editors. You asked me to recommend how content should be provided. The best thing I can do is do is a quick tidy of the article we are discussing. Note the changes. including removing the "Team". (Could all be tealadies/laddies for all we know). I also removed the padding which duplicated "External links, put the other stations into prose, and deleted the timetabling Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Given you have declared coi I wonder if it is appropriate for you to edit these pages at all? DerbyCountyinNZ 04:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you give any other examples of an article on a magazine-style TV programme which includes "typical content"? It seems a somewhat bizarre approach to me, and one that will date quickly as well as have sourcing and verifiability issues. Can anyone imagine a section in Time (magazine) covering a particular feature article as being "typical"? dramatic (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul, I appreciate that you recognise a conflict of interest on this article and are upfront about declaring it. To be blunt, I think your edits were not of a particularly high quality, in that they don't match the in-house Wikipedia style of similar articles about TV programs, but I also think other editors could have put the effort in to explain the stylistic problems with your edits on the talk page. It may have been that they saw the post here before they had composed a reply to you there.-gadfium 08:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

end result is we all wasted our time because we have an article that is hardly much better and certainly not much more useful than before, my possible conflict of interest is simply that I am mentioned by them on their website and I am one of three subjects in one of their very many documentaries, hardly anything to get excited about coi-wise, stupid talk such as 'tealadies/laddies' will never help, the one good outcome is the exhibited behaviour here, but in the end all that counts is an improved article, would be good for wikipedia to have us maintain focus on that, and I'll try harder i spose. I thought the idea was to get a good article, and I see that I have learned how not to achieve that, so how about some solid effort toward improving the article, and keeping the discussion to that alone?mozasaur (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What would you include "toward improving the article"? It already has more info than Country Calendar, and that's been around 40 years. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the COI is relevant when the one (of dozens) documentary item you added to the article is the one in which you were involved. My opposition to its inclusion is not because of you or your COI, it's because there is nothing to separate that item from any other item they do. If we had reliable sources showing that this item was controversial, or opined as the most imortant thing the programme had ever done, or other evidence of particular significance, it would be different. As it5 stands it detracts from the article rather than improving it. dramatic (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

STARS

due to my complete conflict of interest in this composition by Warwick Blair and my participation in the performance / installation events at notable institutions I would appreciate if someone would see fit to creating and building an article worthy of the subject. There is extensive material and verification on-line, and I would be prepared to gift some spectacular images for the purpose. note that Television New Zealand saw fit to create a documentary with Asia Downunder about this project, called 'The Sound of the Skies' funded by New Zealand On Air, and Creative New Zealand funded the latest event for around $7000, hosted by Galatos, which is run by MIC Toi Rerehiko. New Zealand Film Archive played a version for 26 days and nights to the public 24/7 and Dunedin Public Art Gallery staged a 5 screen version for 24 hours. Gus Fisher Gallery staged a 4 hour preview. The short form music from the project is out on a fully published CD, the composer and singer are both notable artists with extensive global exposure. Of course I would be happy to supply all the necessary url's to the sources. mozasaur (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't something which interests me, particularly, but for anyone else who might be interested in looking at it, [16] appears to be a reasonable start. The home page is [17] but that appears less informative than the other link I've given.-gadfium 09:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Asia-Pacific Football Academy

The creation of Asia-Pacific Football Academy 9 months before its subject opens its doors I can more or less cope with, but I think that its inclusion in {{NZ fb general}} is premature and spammy given that notability level is not yet established. Besides, aren't there existing academies in New Zealand? dramatic (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's sufficiently notable yet. There's no guarantee it will actually go ahead! DerbyCountyinNZ 23:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Last chance to vote or change your vote in the Arbitration Committee Elections

This is a brief reminder to all interested editors that today is the final day to vote or to change your vote in the December 2009 elections to elect new members to the Arbitration Committee. The voting period opened at 00:01 on UTC 1 December 2009 and will close at 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009 as initially planned.

The voting this year is by secret ballot using the SecurePoll extension. All unblocked editors who had at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 are eligible to vote (check your account). Prospective voters are invited to review the candidate statements and the candidates' individual questions pages. Although voting is by secret ballot, and only votes submitted in this way will be counted, you are invited to leave brief comments on the candidates' comment pages and discuss candidates at length on the attached talkpages. If you have any questions or difficulties with the voting setup, please ask at the election talkpage. For live discussion, join #wikipedia-en-ace on freenode.

Follow this link to cast your vote

(This is coming from me as an irregular participant in WP:NZ but was shameless copied from a message from  Skomorokh  Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)